« prev   random   next »

7
1

Tree Hugger syndrome ... electricity is basically clean

By Rin following x   2019 Apr 5, 4:13pm 731 views   33 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Ok, all this talk about EVs is nauseating. Let me bring up our own Energy Information Admin's website ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Natural Gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Nuclear 19.3%

That's already 81+% of our electricity's source power.

In other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid will be coming from the aforementioned sources. And yes, those spent uranium rods also count in the cycle of pollution.
1   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 5, 4:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The pollution done by EV is much less and going down

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/


there it is. On average, a conventional car creates more the twice as much carbon pollution as an electric car. Even in the state that gets almost all of its electricity from burning coal, an EV still pollutes less than a typical conventional car. Assuming a 10 year useful life, an average conventional car will spew out 66,000 pounds more carbon pollution than an average electric vehicle. That’s 33 tons, folks. To see which states have the highest and lowest emissions associated with electric cars, check out this graphic from the Department of Energy:



Rin says
In other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid will be coming from the aforementioned sources. And yes, those spent uranium rods also count in the cycle of pollution.
2   Rin   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 4:31pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

There are some 500K+ EVs vs 200M+ ICEs on the road, right now.

Now, reverse that number and here's what will have to happen ... we'll have to send tons of that extra coal and petrol into our power stations to generate enough electrical power to keep all those vehicles, and their backup battery trains, charged to run business as it is done today.

In other words, without a massive scale up of wind, hydro, and solar stations all over the place, 200M EVs will bring the system to a halt, without long term planning in place.
3   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 5, 5:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

There is no difference in power consumption of 200M EV vs 100 M EV. It is the miles driven. Granted that the miles travelled are going up, but I do not see any shortage of Power in USA in the near future. Renewables % is going to grow in the near future. 20% of world electricity is via renewables and increasing. Also most (not all as Wind and Hydro are concentrated) of the renewable are more distributed, reducing the transmission losses.

Rin says
In other words, without a massive scale up of wind, hydro, and solar stations all over the place, 200M EVs will bring the system to a halt, without long term planning in place.

4   Rin   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 5:40pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
no difference in power consumption of 200M EV vs 100 M EV.


Huh? The number was 500,000 EVs vs 200,000,000 ICEs today.

That's what, 0.25% of the vehicles on the road right now?

So when that number flips, so that 99.75% of the vehicles on the roads are EVs ... we won't see a dramatic difference in the power which the grid needs to provide?
5   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 6:15pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Liberals think electricity just makes itself, fucking magical. Clueless about physics.

Panels are pollution, batteries are pollution, generating electricity from other sources isn’t a free process. Those people are fucking clueless, clueless.

They just parrot cnn talking points, don’t even engage brain.
6   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 6:17pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I fucking swear if liberal stupidity could generate electricity we’d fucking turn this planet into a lightning rod.
7   Rin   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 6:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayneIndiana says
Liberals think electricity


Let's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing. That's just being political.

The truth is the over 80+% of our electrical grid is supplied by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. These are facts, not opinions. With that in mind, it's clear that a so-called clean future, with most of our vehicles as EVs, requires a lot more than just feel-good propaganda but an actual change as to how electricity is generated, as a whole, in this country and the world.
8   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 5, 6:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

But it is political. Lefts elite wants to raise the price on electricity. Guaranteed way is to increase demand without increasing supply.

They’ve done this shit for years. Look at our water and housing shortages? Same game.


Rin says
FortWayneIndiana says
Liberals think electricity


Let's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing. That's just being political.

The truth is the over 80+% of our electrical grid is supplied by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. These are facts, not opinions. With that in mind, it's clear that a so-called clean future, with most of our vehicles as EVs, requires a lot more than just feel-good propaganda but an actual change as to how electricity is generated, as a whole, in this country and the world.
9   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 6, 7:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Do you know that it does cost electricity to generate "gas"/petrol and sometimes the net energy maybe -ve. It is because we do not have enough electric vehicles on the road.

The tar sands oil cost as much electricity in energy as much it will later generate, refine and transport,.


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130219/oil-sands-mining-tar-sands-alberta-canada-energy-return-on-investment-eroi-natural-gas-in-situ-dilbit-bitumen


Rin says
There are some 500K+ EVs vs 200M+ ICEs on the road, right now.

Now, reverse that number and here's what will have to happen ... we'll have to send tons of that extra coal and petrol into our power stations to generate enough electrical power to keep all those vehicles, and their backup battery trains, charged to run business as it is done today.
10   d6rB   ignore (1)   2019 Apr 6, 8:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
The tar sands oil cost as much electricity in energy as much it will later generate, refine and transport

Then it would not be economically feasible without massive subsidies, just like bioethanol.
11   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 6, 9:20am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
carbon pollution


Carbon or pollution? These are two different things. Carbon is totally harmless.
12   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2019 Apr 6, 9:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says
FortWayneIndiana says
Liberals think electricity


Let's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing. That's just being political.

The truth is the over 80+% of our electrical grid is supplied by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. These are facts, not opinions. With that in mind, it's clear that a so-called clean future, with most of our vehicles as EVs, requires a lot more than just feel-good propaganda but an actual change as to how electricity is generated, as a whole, in this country and the world.


Makes sense. Good luck convincing the SJW green crew of anything logical.
13   HEYYOU   ignore (26)   2019 Apr 6, 10:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hugolas_Madurez says
Carbon is totally harmless.


Until it's burned?

FortWayneIndiana says
I fucking swear if liberal stupidity could generate electricity we’d fucking turn this planet into a lightning rod.


Read below & see how trashy, immoral Conservatives vote.

Goran_K says
Let's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing.


This is not political,just a fact.
This applies no matter what party he is a member of.

Trump:

LIAR!

5 TIME DRAFT DODGING COWARD!

PUSSY GRABBING SEXUAL PERVERT!

MULTIPLE ADULTERER!

What does this say about some American voters?
They be trash,slime,scum? Or worse?

Bill Clinton was just as bad.
.......

UPDATE !- Independents rule!
14   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 6, 6:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
Then it would not be economically feasible without massive subsidies, just like bioethanol


Not true. Gas cost more as it is more energy dense than any other fuel. Same energy from Petrol cost more as much as 5 times of coal.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
15   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 6, 6:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Makes sense. Good luck convincing the SJW green crew of anything logical.


Have you read my post as why EV causes less pollution than Petrol or you are just saying because Faux or MAGA news told you to, God it is hard to argue with facts here.
16   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 6, 7:31pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Trump grabs pussies, while liberals grab dicks and gender transitioning into poop.

HEYYOU says
Trump:

LIAR!

5 TIME DRAFT DODGING COWARD!

PUSSY GRABBING SEXUAL PERVERT!

MULTIPLE ADULTERER!
17   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2019 Apr 6, 9:55pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Goran_K says
Makes sense. Good luck convincing the SJW green crew of anything logical.


Have you read my post as why EV causes less pollution than Petrol or you are just saying because Faux or MAGA news told you to, God it is hard to argue with facts here.


Anyone who watches CNN is gayer than cum on a mustache.
18   Rin   ignore (4)   2019 Apr 7, 3:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
Renewables % is going to grow in the near future. 20% of world electricity is via renewables and increasing.


One more time, where is the other 80% coming from? ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Natural Gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Nuclear 19.3%

I'd even argue that of the Big Three, the cleanest may actually be nuclear, if society invests in molten salt or high recycling rods, to reduce the salt mine deposits to 300 years of radioactive material vs in the 1000s of years, as it is today.
19   anonymous   ignore (null)   2019 Apr 7, 4:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayneIndiana says
Lefts elite wants to raise the price on electricity. Guaranteed way is to increase demand without increasing supply.

They’ve done this shit for years. Look at our water and housing shortages? Same game.


Good thing there are no conservative CEOs, COOs, or on the Board of Directors for the major utility companies - had me worried.

Believe drivers for the increases are for keeping those dividends rolling out to the investors and staying in business.

As for how to raise the rates - just claim maintenance, upgrades, transmission costs, and the like - one way or another those increases are going to keep coming. When all else fails and the PUC holds up what you want - use any of the above but my favorite is the increased transmission costs. That works equally as well for Natural Gas as well as electricity.

You need it, they have it - so fuck you, pay them or do without or even worse, install solar panels on your residence and turn into a lefty tree hugger type.

Let me guess - some evil genius Lefties are holding back the water and housing ?

Nary a peep about profitability or too many users for too little resources (in this case clean water).

All the fault of those god damn libruls again - except for Enron and similar
20   willywonka   ignore (3)   2019 Apr 7, 6:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Electric cars transfer pollution from numerous point sources to centralized locations. Likewise, obviates the need for gasoline stations that also cause local pollution, e.g., benzene.
22   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 7, 8:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
The pollution done by EV is much less and going down

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/


there it is. On average, a conventional car creates more the twice as much carbon pollution as an electric car. Even in the state that gets almost all of its electricity from burning coal, an EV still pollutes less than a typical conventional car. Assuming a 10 year useful life, an average conventional car will spew out 66,000 pounds more carbon pollution than an average electric vehicle. That’s 33 tons, folks. To see which states have the highest and lowest emissions associated with electric cars, check out this graphic from the Department of Energy:



Rin says
In other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid w...


The ultimate issue: that Carbon Dioxide emissions (Not "Carbon" as so many dumbfucks have decided to shorten it) have been vilified and defined as POLLUTION! Carbon is a single fucking element, not a compound that is a gas at STP, if these damn scientists and policy makers can't even accurately refer to the so-called pollution we should not give them the time of day.

Because I have not completely reviewed the UCS study that the author mentions in the article, I do not know if it covers ALL of the actual emissions let out during the mining, processing, and fabricating of the batteries and motors for these EVs. Hell, the hack of an author can't even see fit to embed a link to the actual study, nor can he post any actual numbers of CO2 emissions from one and the other, just a blanket 66,000 pounds more figure with a bunch of percentages after the fact. How about show actual study figures.
23   Elgatouno   ignore (3)   2019 Apr 7, 9:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Anyone who watches CNN is gayer than cum on a mustache.

I hear the biggest homophobes like to lick cum off their mustache.
24   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Apr 7, 9:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't want to have any rules beyond avoiding personal attacks. That's the main thing - discuss ideas, not the other users.
25   socal2   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 7, 10:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rin says
One more time, where is the other 80% coming from? ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Natural Gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Nuclear 19.3%


Natural gas and certainly nuclear is cleaner than the gasoline we burn in our car engines. America's overall carbon emissions have been declining the last few years beating the rest of the world in reduction despite a booming economy because we are using more and more natural gas to produce electricity thanks to fracking. So if we have to expand gas powered electricity plants to swap out millions of ICE cars, I'd think we would still see meaningful decline in carbon emissions.

Ultimately, it all comes down to batteries. EV's are one of the biggest markets driving battery technology improvement these days. Once we can more efficiently STORE the electricity generated during the day by solar and wind, then an awful lot of the world's problems will be solved in terms of energy supply and availability.
26   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 7, 10:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I have put out a new thread so that you all can read it and debate the logic

http://patrick.net/post/1323735/2019-04-07-evs-are-cleaner-than-ice
27   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 7, 10:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Rin says
One more time, where is the other 80% coming from? ...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Natural Gas 35.1%
Coal 27.4%
Nuclear 19.3%


Natural gas and certainly nuclear is cleaner than the gasoline we burn in our car engines. America's overall carbon emissions have been declining the last few years beating the rest of the world in reduction despite a booming economy because we are using more and more natural gas to produce electricity thanks to fracking. So if we have to expand gas powered electricity plants to swap out millions of ICE cars, I'd think we would still see meaningful decline in carbon emissions.

Ultimately, it all comes down to batteries. EV's are one of the biggest markets driving battery technology improvement these days. Once we can more efficiently STORE ...


The problem with grid energy is that a vast amount of it goes UNSOLD/UNUSED. The ISOs and utility companies have to ensure transmission lines and distribution lines have adequate power available for anticipated/potential demand. We would do more to help the environment to stop worrying about "Carbon" Carbon Dioxide emissions and start trying to trim down generation to what we consume. That requires neighborhood/residence/commercial presence microgrids that can intelligently handle excess available grid power and store it when financially prudent, as well as helping to reduce the instantaneous potential demand by taking care of demand spikes at the site. This would allow the grid supply/demand curve to come more into balance, and help flatline the supply curve, getting rid of the duck curve that has plagued us since the increased adoption of PV supply. Chasing after EVIL CARBON DIOXIDE emissions and vilifying anyone who consumes petroleum based energy products is fucking ludicrous.

Adding a bunch of new demand due to transitioning a large percentage of the population to EV use without first working on the above will result in disaster and more problems to the grid/energy source for all of the precious EVs....
28   socal2   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 8, 10:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ForcedTQ says
The problem with grid energy is that a vast amount of it goes UNSOLD/UNUSED. The ISOs and utility companies have to ensure transmission lines and distribution lines have adequate power available for anticipated/potential demand. We would do more to help the environment to stop worrying about "Carbon" Carbon Dioxide emissions and start trying to trim down generation to what we consume. That requires neighborhood/residence/commercial presence microgrids that can intelligently handle excess available grid power and store it when financially prudent, as well as helping to reduce the instantaneous potential demand by taking care of demand spikes at the site. This would allow the grid supply/demand curve to come more into balance, and help flatline the supply curve, getting rid of the duck curve that has plagued us since the increased adoption of PV supply. Chasing after EVIL CARBON DIOXIDE emissions and vilifying anyone who consumes petroleum based energy products is fucking ludicrous.<...


No disagreement here.

This is why we will need better battery technology that can store energy generated during the day so we can use it at night when there is higher demand.

Something along the lines of this:

29   Goran_K   ignore (2)   2019 Apr 8, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Elgatouno says
Goran_K says
Anyone who watches CNN is gayer than cum on a mustache.

I hear the biggest homophobes like to lick cum off their mustache.


I'll take your word for it.
30   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2019 Apr 8, 12:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Agree with the main point of this thread as I really don't think most people make the connection of how their clean electricity is generated. Also, electric cars are not as efficient as gas engines at higher speeds. So there are many factors to consider before you start bragging about how environmentally conscious you are.

Of far greater importance is what you eat. If you consume chemical laced feed substitutes, you are bankrolling a business that is MUCH more harmful than a gas powered car.
31   Quigley   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 8, 2:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think a hybrid is about as efficient a vehicle for energy as is possible to get. That said, a pure EV would be cleaner if you could charge it with your own solar panels.
Solar has gotten really cheap. I priced out a small 800ampHour system and the battery was the most expensive component at a cool $1000. The six panels were $680. The inverter (higher end) was $220, charger $100, and miscellaneous wiring another $100. So for about $2k, some sweat, and my own know-how, I can install a supplemental electric system that would run my pool pump for free. Or it could charge an electric car. Or I could turn off the main breaker, flip a switch, and run my house off the solar system. All LED lights inside don’t draw much, nor do the various devices or even the smart TV. Adding more panels and batteries could push me closer towards being off grid completely.
32   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2019 Apr 17, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Batteries, Motors, and Electronics impact on the environment: Worse than you thought/knew/gave a fuck about/believe/acknowledge...

https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-dirty-truth-about-green-batteries-1833922990
33   OccasionalCortex   ignore (3)   2019 Apr 17, 4:28pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
66,000 pounds more carbon pollution

Carbon is not an atmospheric pollutant no matter how many times you click the heals of your magical ruby Reebox together and believe otherwise. And if you next bring up nonsense about the Global Warming Fraud, doubling CO2 concentrations AGAIN in the atmosphere like we did over the last few centuries WILL NOT increase temps like it did in the first doubling. There's a 'reverse logarithmic' relationship that causes severe 'diminishing returns' to use an economics analogy when you add more CO2 after the first temp doubling. In order to double temps again, we'd have to pump up over 1,000 PPM CO2 into the atmo, which we can't do with fossil fuels even if we wanted to. And YES, that takes into account water evaporation caused by CO2 as well. Basic, PROVEN science (in a lab, reproducible! Oh no!).

Too bad, given how there is far more SCIENTIFIC evidence (no modeling bullshit and no rigged data points) pointing towards us going into another Little Ice Age circa 2025 or so.

Whereas coal particulates ARE pollution. And very bad pollution at that:

However, new research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that while gasoline cars pollute closer to home, coal-fired power pollutes a lot more.

The researchers estimate that if the U.S. has 10% more gasoline cars in 2020, 870 more people will die each year in the U.S. from air pollution. Hybrids, because they are cleaner, will kill just 610 people. But 10% more electric vehicles powered on the average U.S. electricity mix will kill 1,617 more people every year, mostly from coal pollution. The electric car kills almost three times as many as a hybrid.


But you keep tooting your Greentarded bullshit. What did Lenin call folks like you in another time? Oh yes...Useful Idiot <-- I didn't claim that Tim Aurora is such, moderators! I am just claiming that Lenin would have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions